“You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.” —Indira Gandhi.

Indira Priyadarshini Nehru, a.k..a. Indira Nehru Gandhi, was born on November 19, 1917 and was the only child of Jawaharlal Nehru. She served four terms as prime minister before being assassinated by Sikh extremists in 1984.

Annon said:"Why does one person want to knowwhat another thinks about 9/11? Because it's the quickest way todetermine whether they have theirhead up their ass or not."

I suspect that's not actually the answer. I suspect it's the same motivation as a religious person who demands that others have "faith" in what he believes. He needs support.

Also since I'm semi-almost-famous, it would have some minor value to add my name to those who believe in the cause.

If you must know, I do have some reservations about the official story of 9/11. But the conspiracy theories offered thus far are way too elaborate and convoluted for me to take them seriously.

I was in Japan when that whole thing went down. I remember going all over the Internet in the days that followed hoping to see some kind of answer. And then it dawned on me. None of the people I was reading really knew anything. Not even those who constructed the official story.

Conspiracy types think there must be an answer and that someday they'll discover it. But there is no answer to be found. It's like trying to find the so-called "meaning of life." It melts away before you can get your grip on it.

I actually haven't been following this story very closely and only barely understand what Wikileaks are. But what little I do understand about them (it?) makes me think it's (they're?) mostly useless and sometimes damaging without a whole lot of positive attributes.

Also, I wouldn't believe anything posted on Wikileaks any sooner than I'd believe most of the useless rumors and other such nonsense all over the Internet already.

Malcolm: I suppose you can compare the way you want your neighborhood to be with the way a government functions but that is comparing too different things. In a Democracy the press is there to get you information. They cannot be allowed to be treated like criminals. I'm amazed how someone like Brad could say, "I think they should shut up." He doesn't have to think about anything he doesn't want to but it's generally a good thing for the public to have information about the privileged class who runs their affairs.

Brad Warner said: 'I actually haven't been following this story very closely and only barely understand what Wikileaks are. But what little I do understand about them (it?) makes me think it's (they're?) mostly useless and sometimes damaging without a whole lot of positive attributes.'

well, maybe next time you speak about something of such ubiquity and (possible) global significance you should do more than 'barely understand' that of which you speak. As far as I can tell, Wikileaks is about restoring transparency to our so-called democracy, or at least facing the fact that we don't have democracy; that instead of our elected representatives being our public servants they just do whatever the hell they want.

If your apathy in the face of this comes out of a deeply considered anarchism, where all this proto-fascism is just taken for granted and the best response of the individual is to take responsibility for making their world a better place, I can totally respect that. But if it's just plain old apathy, then I would encourage you to be a bit more considerate about how you express your opinions on such matters.

I suppose you can compare the way you want your neighborhood to be with the way a government functions but that is comparing too different things.

I'm not so sure. Politics is people, no?

and Buddy,

Your comment was addressed to Brad, but this is pretty much how I see it:

If your apathy in the face of this comes out of a deeply considered anarchism, where all this proto-fascism is just taken for granted and the best response of the individual is to take responsibility for making their world a better place, I can totally respect that.

I wouldn't call what politicians and diplomats do "proto-fascism", and I wouldn't call my view "a deeply considered anarchism" - but perhaps they are. The labels don't mean very much, I think. But yes, I do 'take for granted' the kind of behaviour and comments made by our representatives and exposed by wikileaks - I've not been at all surprised by any of the revelations I've so far read about what's been said behind closed doors.

Like I said, such information can be harmful; "telling the truth"/making all information available to everybody isn't always and necessarily "good". But perhaps, in time, we'll all agree that Wikileaks has made the world a better place...We'll see.

There again, my attitude is no doubt influenced by my belief that the activities of the vast majority of individuals that comprise the political class are not motivated by a desire to scam/rip off/destroy civilization as we know it. I believe most of them are just ordinary, deluded people doing the best they can to make things better for them and us in the only way they know how. Being ordinary, deluded people they make mistake after mistake. Often very big ones.

Am I a cynic? An Idealist? A realist? My oldest mate keeps telling me I'm just a very ordinary, deluded person. What can you do, eh?

Her answers (what few camara hog skylar allowed her to answer) were spot onAnd why not wait for Ben to give some input?We, on the side of questions, want to hear answers from all perspectivessharing the limelight might work best--a panel discussion as it were.

108: 'the vast majority of individuals that comprise the political class are not motivated by a desire to scam/rip off/destroy civilization as we know it. I believe most of them are just ordinary, deluded people doing the best they can to make things better for them and us in the only way they know how. Being ordinary, deluded people they make mistake after mistake. Often very big ones.'

this may very well be true. but i think political institutions and structures can take on a life of their own, greater than the sum of their parts as it were, that frustrate, complicate and subvert the best intentions of the people involved. and when these structures include ye olde military/industrial complex and esp. corporatism (which appears to be one of, if not the, biggest forces in the political sphere right now)then the 'desire to scam/rip off/destroy civilization as we know it' becomes more of a deciding factor than i'm comfortable with. but again, the question arises: what the hell to do about it?!

Buddy, I just don't see what use there is in my forming an opinion on Wikileaks or who is truly responsible for 9/11.

Soulgent79's sarcasm is lost on me since I don't know what he's talking about.

How much information does a person really need? I think this is a key question. We stuff our heads full of information and work hard on forming and holding on to opinions. But what do we really do about any of it?

Back in '83 my friends in the band Starvation Army wrote a song called "Millions of Songs About Dead Cops" in response to the band Millions of Dead Cops (and probably to 0DFx, who were getting a bit too "serious" even for me).

"Millions of songs about dead cops. Millions of Songs about the bomb. What are you gonna do about the cops? What are you gonna do about the bomb?"

This afternoon I had to rush out of my sister's house to deal with a medical emergency in the family. This is where my responsibility lies. I can't solve the 9/11 mysteries. I can't do very much about ... uh ... whatever is going on with those ambassadors.

I know some people think it's awful that I wouldn't have strong opinions on these things. But I've found that I can live better without them.

Brad: The offensive thing isn't that you have little interest in government but that you think we would be better off not knowing what government is up to. Your "Wiki-leaks, I think they should shut up." comment was just plain weird to me. But whatever, maybe you were joking. But you do think there is a place in a democracy for the press right??

Gouskin, Wiki leaks is both good and bad. Exposing corruption is a good thing. releasing the location of the pentagons underground communication cables is bad. It does not expose corruption and it threatens the nations security. there are some things that need to be exposed and there are military secrets that should not be exposed. I hope we can all agree that both are true.

Yeah, WL is both good and bad. But it is a news agency not a propaganda resource. It has information that was leaked to it by the American government. It isn't about judging whether the info is helpful or hurtful, because that judgment is subjective. It gets raw information from GOVERNMENT sources and releases it to the public. The onus is not on Wiki-leaks to clean it up or propagandize it. Wiki-leaks is only the messenger. They are providing a valuable service by disclosing what our employees are up to. Why would a citiZEN want to censor information being leaked by a government about that same government?

Answer to riddle: The man that walked into the bar had the...HICCUPS! Instead of giving him a glass of water, the bartender pulled a gun on him because scaring someone who has the hiccups makes the hiccups go away. The man said thank you to the bartender for curing his case of hiccups.

In my early twenties, I had plenty of occasions to fall upon some maoists or other "revolutionaries". Whenever one would contradict them, they were always very prone to call you a "fascist".

Now, Mussolini gave a very interesting definition of what is a fascist, (and I suppose one can hold him for a sort of authority in the matter...). He said: "A fascist quits his own will, and puts himself to the exclusive service of the Guide, so that the Guide's will shall be actualised without obstacles".

Whenever I fell upon such "revolutionaries", I had a distinct impression that they would become just as oppressive and reactionary, if not more, than those leaders of the world at the time for whom they had such contempt.

Gouski said "Why would a citiZEN want to censor information being leaked by a government about that same government?" If it exposes corruption I would want it leaked. When it comes to sensitive info like the location of communication cables I would not want it leaked because it serves no useful purpose at all! Wiki is not responsible for uncovering the info but they still share responsibility for the release of info. Lets say I was told about secret comunication lines and I exposed it. Then terrorists tapped the lines and used the info to kill citizens. I would certanly share the blame for those deaths. As good as it is for Wiki to expose corruption it is wrong for them to endanger citizens by releasing info that could get honest people killed. They have a moral duty as humans to expose corruption and also to not endanger inoccent lives.

Hokay This is Jason, Formerly "Tattoozen". Since some internet tough guy has hijacked my name im posting under this name now. Any future posts under the minker "Tattoozen" will be the anonymous clown sniper.

Forget all the shit you've learned! If we want to make an omelet, we need to break a few rotten eggs. People, look out for yourselves, when the revolution comes we will be searching out Bourgeoisie (rock) musicians first. Then the teachers. See you soon hysterion! China showed us the way. Sorry about your luck Brad but writers of non-revolutionary texts are out also.. It will suck for a generation or so, but then it will be Spring.

I think it is useful, when discussing something like WikiLeaks, to check out their website itself instead of just relying on what other media outlets say about it (Isn't that sort of a Buddhist thing anyway?). I finally did so after a couple of days, and it seems to me that the supposed endangerment of "our people" by the leaks could easily be a tale concocted by the Pentagon and their buddies, as happened with the Pentagon Papers (where no one was actually harmed although the Pentagon screamed bloody murder).

March 11, 2008An interview with Nicholas Maxwell author of From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the Humanities. From Knowledge to Wisdom argues that there is an urgent need, for both intellectual and humanitarian reasons, to bring about a revolution in science and the humanities. The outcome would be a kind of academic inquiry rationally devoted to helping humanity learn how to create a better world. The basic intellectual aim of inquiry would be to seek and promote wisdom — wisdom being the capacity to realize what is of value in life for oneself and others, thus including knowledge and technological know-how, but much else besides.

According to Maxwell, "Natural science has been extraordinarily successful in increasing knowledge. This has been of great benefit to humanity. But new knowledge and technological know-how increase our power to act which, without wisdom, may cause human suffering and death as well as human benefit. All our modern global problems have arisen in this way: global warming, the lethal character of modern war and terrorism, vast inequalities of wealth and power round the globe, rapid increase in population, rapid extinction of other species, even the aids epidemic (aids being spread by modern travel). All these have been made possible by modern science dissociated from the rational pursuit of wisdom. If we are to avoid in this century the horrors of the last one — wars, death camps, dictatorships, poverty, environmental damage — we urgently need to learn how to acquire more wisdom, which in turn means that our institutions of learning become devoted to that end.

For nearly 30 years Maxwell taught the Philosophy of Science at the University College London, where he is now Emeritus Reader in Philosophy of Science and Honorary Senior Research Fellow. He is also the author of What's Wrong With Science?, The Comprehensibility of the Universe, and The Human World in the Physical Universe.

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/images/ep-24-maxwell-book.jpgFrom Knowledge to Wisdom , by Nicholas Maxell. Published by Pentire Press, 2007. Science has been very successful at producing knowledge. But knowledge without wisdom, or science without civilization, is a dangerous thing, according to Nicholas Maxwell. And the reason we have the one without the other, he believes, is that science, as now practiced, does not question its own purposes or investigate its own presuppositions. It transforms the world but cannot transform itself. Nicholas Maxwell is a philosopher of science, now retired from University College, London, and the author of From Knowledge to Wisdom, first published in 1984 and just reissued in a revised edition. He argues – these are his own words – that: “We need a revolution in the aims and methods of academic inquiry, so that the basic aim becomes to promote wisdom by rational means, instead of just to acquire knowledge.” Nicholas Maxwell makes his case In the final episode of our series."